Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nobs01 (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 27 July 2005 (→Stone & KGB Redux: Stone's role). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I was under the impression that Izzy's legal name was Isidor Feinstein, which was his birth name, and that I. F. Stone was simply a pen name. On the other hand, it is possible that he legally changed his name to Isidor Feinstein Stone. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could clear this up, and change the article to reflect the situation Too Old 01:05, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Kalugin

Here is the proper citation FBI Venona FOIA, p. 37, ( under the section entitled "Vladimir S. Pravdin). I know, I know, "Have You No Sense of Decency...". Nobs01 19:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So he published a book about how the U.S. and South Korea "initiated casualties" and "planned for the conflict." OK... now how 'bout we add in the fact that it's now confirmed that the war was started by dear ol' Kim in the North? J. Parker Stone 06:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL, didn't even realize that an edit war on this was already in progress... checked this article after seeing Mr. Lopez's references to IF Stone on Magdoff. J. Parker Stone 06:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There are some pecularities regarding Stone I would be happy to discuss, in context with the larger edit war that same to be going on. nobs 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

KGB status

Could we take one paragraph at a time and discuss the text. Much of the Red-baiting POV and conservative attacks at least need to be cited to a published source so we can discuss them properly.--Cberlet 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Some writers, mostly conservative, have claimed that Stone had an involvement with the KGB. These claims are disputed.

I am sorry but this reeks. All who have commented on the subject acknowledge that Stone had some kind of cordial relationship with the KGB field office. Some argue that this went further, with the bulk of the research being done by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (the foremost authorities on Venona).

As much as you might like to, lets not paint all those who believe that Stone was working for the KGB either as an "agent" or more appropriately an "agent of influence" as knuckle dragging right wingers. TDC 16:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Also, why do you continue to presnet Navasky's article as gospel truth? the least you could do is attribute it to him and write in an NPOV manner.

Please provide the cites to the claim that Stone was "involved with the KGB." We can count them and see where they come from. The paragraph on Stone's research style, although sourced to Navasky, is a view widely held across the journalistic community--and across political boundaries. It is a focal point of the documentary film made about Stone.--Cberlet 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are already cited in the article in the Venona link to the CIA's website. The Kauglin reference, and the issue is discussed in Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

Then explain this:

Title: Stone miscast.(journalist I.F. Stone)

Date: 11/4/1996; Publication: The Nation; Author: Schneir, Miriam

===And in 1994 Kalugin himself, the only named source, resolved the matter in his memoir, The First Directorate. He recalled his K.G.B. posting to Washington, D.C., in the 1960s as Soviet press attache--a credible cover because he had previously studied journalism at Columbia. Seeking political information, he got to know "some of the leading journalists and politicians in the capital," including Izzy Stone. "KGB headquarters never said had been an agent of our intelligence service...." Kalugin's only reference to money was an incident when he lunched with Stone shortly after the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring. Stone, he said, was "aloof," and "angrily" refused to let him pay the tab. They never met again. End of story.

The current text seems like a total misrepresentation that conflates Stone meeting with Tass reporters (who turned out to be KGB agents) and the suggestion that he worked with the KGB, which Kalugin himself disputes. This is why I say the text is POV from the political right.--Cberlet 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Short answer, it bullshit from the Nation magazine.

Long answer, read Kalugin’s memoirs, where he states quite explicitly that he considered Stone an “agent of influence” whom he used to pass along disinformation to eager Stone.

Keep in mind that Kauglin's activities are quite separate from the Venona information. TDC 17:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

With respect to Navasky and the belief that is "widely held across the journalistic community", its still unattributed POV, cause there are many people in the "historical community" as well as the "journalistic community" who see him as nothing more than a Soviet shill. TDC 16:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly not POV, is it? :-)--Cberlet 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a published source for this claim:

"Documents from Soviet era archive show that Stone was wrong in his assesment and that Joseph Stalin and Kim Il Sung orchestrated the Korean War. "

Thanks.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Stone’s main point of contention in “The Hidden History of the Korean War” was that Korean war that the United States and Syngman Rhee planned for the conflict and initiated hostilities. All information that has come out of Russia since the break up of the Soviet Union shows Kim Il Sung seeking for and receiving approval from Stalin to launch a sneak attack on the south. TDC 17:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, so you should add the cites and try to make the sentence NPOV.--Cberlet 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, what TDC is saying here and what is said in the article are two completely different things. In the article it says Stalin is one of the people who orchestrated the Korean war, and Stone was wrong in what he had said regarding this. So what is said is Stalin orchestrated the Korean war, and that what Stone said regarding this was wrong. Here, TDC is saying something else, he is saying Sung was seeking approval from Stalin to be more militant (I'll be more general about what he said, putting "sneak attack" and all aside for the moment). OK, but what does this have to do about Stone being wrong about what Stone said regarding Stalin being who orchestrated the Korean war? The point is that Stalin would have to have had orchestrated the Korean war, and Stone would have had to have been wrong about this, or at least the documentary evidence would have had to have been different. On the contrary, all of the documents that have come out have shown the exact opposite. Stalin absolutely did not want a conflict breaking out in Korea, he was very happy with the status quo there. In fact, the Russian army pulled out of North Korea while the US army was still milling about in the south.

This sentence says that Stalin orchestrated the Korean war, what Stone said regarding this was wrong, and the documents coming out show that Stalin orchestrated the war and what Stone said about that was wrong. The exact opposite is true - all documents that have come out show that Stalin did not want war to break out in Korea, and repeatedly told Sung he did not want war to break out in Korea. So the evidence coming out of the USSR has been the exact opposite of what has been stated. Ruy Lopez 21:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Stone & KGB Redux

The attacks on Stone in Reader's Digest have been largely debunked. How do you explain this?

"Title: Stone miscast.(journalist I.F. Stone)

Date: 11/4/1996; Publication: The Nation; Author: Schneir, Miriam

===And in 1994 Kalugin himself, the only named source, resolved the matter in his memoir, The First Directorate. He recalled his K.G.B. posting to Washington, D.C., in the 1960s as Soviet press attache--a credible cover because he had previously studied journalism at Columbia. Seeking political information, he got to know "some of the leading journalists and politicians in the capital," including Izzy Stone. "KGB headquarters never said had been an agent of our intelligence service...." Kalugin's only reference to money was an incident when he lunched with Stone shortly after the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring. Stone, he said, was "aloof," and "angrily" refused to let him pay the tab. They never met again. End of story. ===

Sounds way different from the current text.--Cberlet 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Nations selective use of Kalugin's quotes is very suspicious. Go check out a copy of Kalugin's memoirs if you want to read what he relay said concerning this subject, which is currently reflected in tthe article.

Kalugin is very specific about the difference between an agent and an agent of influence. TDC 17:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Agent of Influence" is a term proliferated by the political right when they want to smear their political opponents, but lack the evidence. Reading government intelligence files requires a baloney and hype detector. Agents are constantly claiming to have recruited a source, when all that happened was that they had lunch. The current text conflates being a KGB agent and being someone approached by a career-conscious KGB agent with a quota.--Cberlet 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Brush up on your cold war lingo. An "agent of influence" is not neccesarily a "spy". An "agent of influence" may be a well-placed, "trusted contact" who consciously served Soviet interests on some matters while retaining his integrity on others, or an unwitting contact who is manipulated to take actions that advanced Soviet interests on specific issues of common concern (like North Korea). The KGB takes a person who tends to agree with the Soviet position on at least one significant issue, such as opposition to some element of United States policy, and then seeks ways to motivate and help that person become a successful advocate on that issue within their own circle of influence.

Based on what I have read concerning Stone, from Venon to Kalugin's writings, he would most certainly classify as an "agent of influence", but not a spy. In noe of my edits, have I attempted to label him as a "spy" or "agent". TDC 00:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, when referring to "government intelligence files" and needing a "baloney detector", the fact that these are most likely the most objective sources one can find. The authors of these files never expected or foresaw them becoming declassified and entering into the public debate. In my opinion, these are the rawest and most candid historical records for that reason. The interpretations of them are and have been subject to a great deal of debate, but that said, the information within them is top notch. TDC 00:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

as far as i can tell there is a factual debate going on about whether Stone was involved in espionage. there is no McCarthyite "smearing" occurring. J. Parker Stone 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Then can we make the text a more balanced rendition of the debate?--Cberlet 22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Having read the underlyign materials, I have to say this is an attempted hatchet job on Stone. There is a difference between a person considered an "asset" by an undercover KGB case officer, and a person being run as an agent by the KGB. There is not one iota of evidence that Stone was aware he was talking to a KGB officer. He was having lunch with the press officer of the Russian embassy. When I was a reporter in Washington, D.C. registered in the Congressional Press Corps., I had lunch with many embassy press officers. That's what they do. They take reporters to lunch and chat them up. This is all ridiculous.--Cberlet 13:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edit before at least dicsussing it here for a few rounds. I am serious about challenging the text as a POV distortion of the historic record, misrepresentation of underlying documents, and failure to differentiate between a person exploited by a KGB agent as a source of information and a person who collaborated with the KGB.--Cberlet 16:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

An agent of influence, the term Kalugin used, it is unclear to Kalugin whether or not Stone knew he was dealing with just another Soviet official, or a KGB handler. But in 1944 Stone did meet with Vladimir Pravdin, who at the time had journalistic cover and was an “agent” in the James Bond sense of the term, and told Pravdin that “he had noticed our (KGB) attempts to contact him

• Stone said that he had noticed our attempts to contact him ... but he had reacted negatively fearing the consequences. Stone ... was not refusing his aid but one should consider that he had three children and did not want to attract the attention of the FBI. Stone earns as much as 1500 a month but, it seems, he would not be averse to having a supplementary income.

Which is where the 15,000 copies of the IF Stone reader comes into play. Stone must have realized that he was not simply dealing with a TASS official, which many journalists did in 1944 with the war on and all, otherwise he would not have been afraid of FBI scrutiny.

This is the argument Khelr and Haynes put forth. TDC 16:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The you need to say that some authors claim that Stone should have known he was in contact with someopne who may have reported to the KGB, and then cite the reference. That is not what the text does. It is a biased POV version that needs to be cited properly.--Cberlet 16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pecularities regarding Stone: (1) Stone had a covert relationship with the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1968. (2) Stone, it would appear, worked for cash, and was not necessarily ideologically motivated. (3) Information Stone could offer was not much more than his personal commentary on domestic political events. (4) The true nature of his relationship has more to do with subversion, than with information gathering or transfer. Stone lending his high profile name to various front organizations, or Communist fronts, which as the HUAC article describes, was often no more than a "petition drive", Stone help to build an elaborate system of "cut outs". Stone was able to successfully aid in the recruitment of thousands of persons into front organizations, whose sole purpose is to confuse and consume the limited resources of counterintelligence agencies. Each counterintellignece agency acts within a limited, finite budget, with a limited number of properly trained personel; when faced with an investigative list with a hundred names on it, precious time and resources are used up chasing shadows. And that is more less what Stone's job was, to lend his name for recruitment of others into various causes for the purpose of countering counterintelligence. It was not "unwitting", it was paid subversion. nobs 21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So you admit that your highly biased and opinionated POV original research actually has no reputable published source to cite to? That because you are a militant anticommunist you feel it is OK to put in print here that anyone who was a commie symp is the same thing as a active witting KGB agent? Is that your position, at long last?--Cberlet 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I posted an analysis of Stone's role on the talk page; you will note I have not inserted this into the article or attempted to do so. I am discussing on the Talk page, which is what the Talk page is for, I assume. And the HUAC insertion, which is not my work, touches on this point. It seems there needs to be some clarification of understanding what Stone's relationship was, seeing (1) he did not work in government (2) he did not work in Washington. nobs 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Korea

Someone needs to cite this claim:

"Although in the case of the Korean War, many of these documents have turned out to be fabrications."

Thanks.--Cberlet 13:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Columnist"

"...with one columnist going as far to call..." Name the columnist. If this is, say, Michael Novak it is pretty different than if it is, say, Russell Baker. Without a name and citation, this is nothing but weaselly POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)